1 2025:CGHC:55887 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 638 of 2022 1 - Smt. Shanti Laxme W/o Late Vijay Laxme Aged About 37 Years R/o Village- Chharra Post Office Pidari, Tahsil- Sarangarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. Presently Address (Hal Mukam) C/o Milan Kumar Lahare Village- Lakshman Bhatha) (Ramgali) Post Office- Gobrra Tahsil And Thana- Dabhara District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - (Minor) Rajan Laxme S/o Late Vijay Laxme Aged About 15 Years Appellant No. 2 To 3 Is Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Shanti Laxme Appellant No. 1. All Are Cost - Satnami. R/o Village- Chharra Post Office Pidari, Tahsil- Sarangarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3 - (Minor) Yamon Laxme D/o Late Vijay Laxme Aged About 13 Years Appellant No. 2 To 3 Is Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Shanti Laxme Appellant No. 1. All Are Cost - Satnami. R/o Village- Chharra Post Office Pidari, Tahsil- Sarangarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. R/o Village- Chharra HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.11.28 11:37:52 +0530 2 Post Office Pidari, Tahsil- Sarangarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - Bhukhe Lal Laxme S/o Jagmohan Laxme Aged About 73 Years R/o Village- Chharra Post Office Pidari, Tahsil- Sarangarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. Presently Address (Hal Mukam) C/o Milan Kumar Lahare Village- Lakshman Bhatha) (Ramgali) Post Office- Gobrra Tahsil And Thana- Dabhara District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 5 - Smt. Amrin Laxme W/o Bhukhe Lal Laxme Aged About 62 Years R/o Village- Chharra Post Office Pidari, Tahsil- Sarangarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. Presently Address (Hal Mukam) C/o Milan Kumar Lahare Village- Lakshman Bhatha) (Ramgali) Post Office- Gobrra Tahsil And Thana- Dabhara District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants/Claimants versus The Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Company Limited Registered Office Iffco Sadan C.Van Distik Sweet New Dilli Pin Code No. 110017, District : New Delhi, Delhi. ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 3 17.11.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellants/claimants against the impugned award dated 07/02/2022 passed by learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) whereby the claim application filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 163(A) of the Act of 1988 has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Claims Tribunal has legally erred in rejecting the claim application filed by the appellants/claimants, therefore, the instant appeal be allowed and the impugned award be set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent would support the impugned award and submit that the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. Admittedly, deceased Vijay Laxme was the owner of the offending motorcycle bearing Registration No. CG 13 AF 2326 and while he was driving the said motorcycle, he suffered accident and died pursuant to which the claim 4 application under Section 163A of the Act of 1988 was filed by the appellants/claimants which has been rejected by the Claims Tribunal holding that deceased, being the owner of the motorcycle, would not fall within the category of third party within the meaning of the Act of 1988 and moreover, on the date of the accident, he did not possess valid and effective driving license, therefore, the appellants/claimants would not be entitled for any compensation. The said finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and does not warrant any interference by this Court. I do not find any merit in this appeal. 6. Accordingly, this appeal, being devoid of merits, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneets